Thanks to John for the tip!
How many of you knew that the USMC has two different plate carriers in service?
How many of you knew that you could add a third, fourth and fifth if you count the London Bridge, Crye Precision and Eagle Industries offerings to the list?
Tally the cost involved with MarCorSysCom actually dipping into the budget to develop the IMPC and the ISPC and you have another instance of the Marine Corps not being good stewards of the taxpayers dollar. Oh and if you want to know something else that's a kick in the teeth? MARSOC and SOCOM all simply use the NSN's that the commercial/military private industry has assigned and simply farms it out to the units to decide.
Why is this important?
Simple. Too much boutique equipment that isn't AND SHOULD NOT be Marine Corps specific.
Plate Carriers? Not falling into Army supply system and using the Carl Gustav instead of the SMAW? Adopting the M27 and reducing squad firepower instead of following the Army and SOCOM and adopting lightweight M249?
Dunford will have alot to do. Getting his arms wrapped around Marine Corps procurement and making it rational again will be at the top of his list.
Sidenote: But wait there's more! This weekend I'll be publishing a part two to this and do a complete procurement rundown on what I think should happen. Yeah, you can bet that the AAV replacement will be at the top of the list along with canceling the F-35, but there are many more things that also have to be included. Standby for a little show and tell on Saturday.
 |
 |
How many of you knew that you could add a third, fourth and fifth if you count the London Bridge, Crye Precision and Eagle Industries offerings to the list?
Tally the cost involved with MarCorSysCom actually dipping into the budget to develop the IMPC and the ISPC and you have another instance of the Marine Corps not being good stewards of the taxpayers dollar. Oh and if you want to know something else that's a kick in the teeth? MARSOC and SOCOM all simply use the NSN's that the commercial/military private industry has assigned and simply farms it out to the units to decide.
Why is this important?
Simple. Too much boutique equipment that isn't AND SHOULD NOT be Marine Corps specific.
Plate Carriers? Not falling into Army supply system and using the Carl Gustav instead of the SMAW? Adopting the M27 and reducing squad firepower instead of following the Army and SOCOM and adopting lightweight M249?
Dunford will have alot to do. Getting his arms wrapped around Marine Corps procurement and making it rational again will be at the top of his list.
Sidenote: But wait there's more! This weekend I'll be publishing a part two to this and do a complete procurement rundown on what I think should happen. Yeah, you can bet that the AAV replacement will be at the top of the list along with canceling the F-35, but there are many more things that also have to be included. Standby for a little show and tell on Saturday.
A update to your current pictures. The 1st one is the old scalable plate carrier (well liked when one changed out the Cumberband) te second is the current ISpc(cost somewhere between 600-800 per, since it's only made for the corps)
ReplyDeletehttp://ciehub.info/equipment/protective/IMTV.jpg
This is the current "improved modular tactical vest" or as we call it, tank armor. Bulky, heavy, and simply just a waste of money it cost more than the ispc if I recall.
We issue both. Such a waste when we could just purchase off the shelf item as already in system for a fraction of te price. A lbt-6094a cost $300 for a new plate carrier, open purchased by a single person, bought corps wide I'm sure that price drops.
i'll just let your description ride on this one. i went to KDH's site but still jumbled it. oh well.
ReplyDeleteGo to wiki and look up te mtv. The syscom never even talked to the combat arms about the iteAm. You want someone to find gear grunts want? They need to be grunts, typically a geardo sniper or a guy from recon.and be enlisted.
DeleteI loved my plate carrier. I did the classic swap of the MTV cumberbund for the one the plate carrier came with and was happy as could be. I hated the MTV and I never wore it in combat even though I was required to bring it on deployment. You could also integrate the assault pack very easily with the SPC and that was much more comfortable because you could strap it on tight and have no restrictions on your arms. Seriously on happy thoughts about my old SPC.
ReplyDeleteListen to troops. Everyone has spent years fighting in afghanistan with plate carriers and I never heard any complaints about the armor, only about having to wear all 4 plates because that was just heavy.
The MTV was only useful as a warming layer.
What about the dragon skin ? Do you remeber the old scandal ?
ReplyDeletewhat about dragon skin ? did it not prove itself to be a decent protection package ?
Deleteno it did not, it failed under hard conditions and was not up to par.
DeleteBtw: looks like Boeing and US Army(?) work on sea version of AH-64 to reinforce Expedition forces on the Pacific. The first prototype in 2017...
ReplyDeleteUS Army try to enter in to USMC shoos again.
Has anyone tried the latest version of the plate carrier? http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140208/NEWS/302080002/Next-generation-body-armor-will-fight-fatigue-battlefield
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to how well the load distribution system works in the field in regards to mobility vs moving weight to your hips.
just another waste of money to devlope something already on the shelf. Its suppose to bridge this gap between the ISPC and IMTV, when you could simply just buy of the shelf products that are better, have already been endoursed by SOCOM and will cost much less in bulk becasue they dont require a retooling or retraining to make.
Deletesimple solutions and being frugal are what we should be doning, not making a "USMC" plate carrier.
Also why did the Marines not buy the M240L like the Army? If a unit can only go as fast as the slowest person, and the heaviest load is carried by the machine gunner, doesn't it make sense to reduce the weight he carries?
ReplyDelete